Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalized incest
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | Thursday, April 15, 2004 | Editorial

Posted on 04/15/2004 3:52:18 PM PDT by Graybeard58

To hear homosexual agitators tell it, same-sex "marriage" is no threat to the institution that civilized humans have reserved for one man and one woman for thousands of years. They scoff at the notion that vaporizing traditional marriage will break down barriers prohibiting unions involving multiple partners, close relatives or other species.

But the facts say otherwise. More than a decade ago, homosexual marriage was legalized in Scandinavia and now dogs are routinely sodomized in Sweden to the point where they need medical treatment. Now the same court that conjured up a same-sex marriage right in Massachusetts has ruled that sex between stepparents and stepchildren is not incest; soon enough, it may not even qualify as rape.

In late March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that incest laws do not apply to a 60-year-old Dorchester man accused of having sex with his 15-year-old stepdaughter at least six times. The law specifically prohibits sex between people related by blood or adoption, the majority noted, but since the man neither sired nor adopted her, their relationship does not rise to the level of incest. State laws, the court said, "cannot be stretched beyond their fair meaning" (our emphasis).

The legislature made incest a crime to prevent the exploitation of minors by parents or their surrogates, and preserve the value and stability of families. Apparently, hair-splitting justices have never heard of common sense or common decency, but one must ask why a court known for its activism failed to apply the principle of legislative intent in a case as repugnant as this.

The defendant still faces numerous charges — rape, exhibiting a nude child on videotape and wiretapping — arising from his relationship with his stepdaughter. But if sex between a 60-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl is legal on an almost Clintonesque technicality, then what's to stop the court from invalidating the statutory-rape law on a similar triviality? In both instances, the girl is considered too young to give informed consent, yet that important legal precept is ignored in judging the incest case. In decriminalizing what most reasonable people would consider incest, the majority puts the nation on the road to legalizing sex between adults and children.

Once that barrier is demolished, it is not much of a reach to see the next step in the court's perverted universe would be to let adults and children marry. Think that's crazy? Here are the court's own words: "Because there are situations where persons related by affinity should be permitted to marry, it therefore follows that they should not be included within the incest prohibition. ... The interpretation that the Commonwealth urges on us sweeps up and criminalizes ... a wide assortment of relationships between consenting adults." And children, and relatives, and animals.

The majority, however, can't reach its conclusion without the strictest interpretation of the incest statute, which makes the contrast between this decision and the one the majority made last November in writing same-sex marriage into the Massachusetts Constitution that much more stark.

In the same-sex marriage case, the majority took activism to the extreme to make homosexual marriage a right. It wrote that "whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family — these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights." Decriminalizing sexual relationships between adults and children merely moves that agenda forward.

And it's odd, too, that while it ordered the Massachusetts legislature to codify its decision on homosexual marriage, it took a cavalier attitude toward the incest issue: "We leave it to the Legislature to expand the incest prohibition if it so chooses." That would be a fool's errand because no matter how well researched, worded or grounded, a law limiting promiscuous or immoral sex is unlikely to pass muster with majority justices.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; adoption; consent; culturewar; diversity; homosexualagenda; incest; itsjustsex; judicialtyranny; lawrencevstexas; mass; perversity; prisoners; sex; sexualdeviants
Coming to a neighborhood near you.
1 posted on 04/15/2004 3:52:21 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"Coming to a neighborhood near you."


Does anyone know the definition of "shunning"?

2 posted on 04/15/2004 3:59:53 PM PDT by Maria S (Assigned parking only...all violators will be towed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
read later
3 posted on 04/15/2004 4:01:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
Does anyone know the definition of "shunning"?

You sound like a dope-smokin' liberultarian talkin' like that.

</sarcasm>

4 posted on 04/15/2004 4:06:06 PM PDT by Redcloak (Over 13,000 served.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Later.....
5 posted on 04/15/2004 4:08:21 PM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
That Massachusetts court alraqdy has a list of favorite animals doesn't it?

That's what it's really all about, right?!

6 posted on 04/15/2004 4:09:15 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Not necessarily a bad idea. Bring some of those recessive phenotypes to surface so we know where they are lurking. You folks need to look at the bright side of consanguineous procreation. And, hey, it worked for the Ptolemies.
7 posted on 04/15/2004 4:10:32 PM PDT by beavus (The wrong metaphysics can make you not only dead, but deservedly so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"60-year-old Dorchester man accused of having sex with his 15-year-old stepdaughter at least six times"

Ok...so incest....according to their interpretation of the law doesn't work in this case (not that I agree with this idea).....I think plain ol' statutory rape of a minor would suffice....

8 posted on 04/15/2004 4:12:19 PM PDT by BossLady (You don't need a wishbone....You need a backbone.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
About 15 years ago in Malibu there was a guy who was convicted of raping a horse. Years later same guy - same crime - different horse. Way beyond my fertile imagination - that
9 posted on 04/15/2004 4:20:51 PM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
I have no use for this court, but it is a basic tenet of legal theory and practice that criminal statutes are interpreted very strictly: "No crime without a law." The reason for this is obvious - flexible criminal laws would give the government way too much discretion to define criminal conduct after the fact.

The conduct of this disgusting man is not incest according to the law. The legislature should change the law immediately and include stepparents.
10 posted on 04/15/2004 4:22:08 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BossLady
I think plain ol' statutory rape of a minor would suffice....

In Massachusetts? That would just be a challenge to rule the statutory rape laws unconstitutional.

11 posted on 04/15/2004 4:31:37 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Does Mass. have ANY rape laws or has the Kennedy family had them all erased??? The girl obviously didn't have consensual sex with this creep....
12 posted on 04/15/2004 4:36:11 PM PDT by BossLady (You don't need a wishbone....You need a backbone.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Republicus2001
It would be even more creepy if it were the same horse
13 posted on 04/15/2004 4:45:28 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Voting Bush for lack of reasonable alternatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"....now dogs are routinely sodomized in Sweden to the point where they need medical treatment...."

This sounds like something out of a National Lampoon Magazine from about 25 years ago. Life imitates art!! Remind me never to be reincarnated as a Swedish dog.

About 10 years ago, when I was living in Darlington, SC, I noticed an article in the Florence Morning News about a local man who had been arrested for sodomizing a Chihuahua. He had been turned in by a member of his own family, they having evidently warned him, after previous episodes of this behavior, to stop. I've wondered about many aspects of this affair...mostly, "How?"
14 posted on 04/15/2004 4:46:14 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Is Ted on that list?
15 posted on 04/15/2004 4:48:20 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats; Paleo Conservative; BossLady; Graybeard58
it is a basic tenet of legal theory and practice that criminal statutes are interpreted very strictly: "No crime without a law." The reason for this is obvious - flexible criminal laws would give the government way too much discretion to define criminal conduct after the fact.

Perhaps, but the real point of this article is the hypocrisy of this particular activist court, which rules as they wish to fit their Leftist ideology (irregardless of the law or the will of the people), and then craft the law to fit their ruling. These two recent cases illustrate their bias and disregard for the legal process.

When ruling on the incest issue, they ruled using the strictest interpretation of the law, using semantics to justify their ruling. But when ruling on the homosexual "marriage" issue, they flouted the letter of the laws, instead reading their own words into the Massachusetts Constitution (and then demanding that the legislature rewrite the Constitution to fit the judge's subversive interpretation).

The only thing worse than flexible laws, are "flexible" judges whose rulings are not based on any laws, but rather on their own personal ideologies. That is Judicial Tyranny.

16 posted on 04/15/2004 4:51:01 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
Exactly! Bend and shape the laws so they get their way....
17 posted on 04/15/2004 5:05:28 PM PDT by BossLady (You don't need a wishbone....You need a backbone.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"and now dogs are routinely sodomized in Sweden"

Hey, just because some Swedish girls are only semi-beautiful, is no reason to insult them by calling them dogs.

The woman's organization, NOW, recently wrote to the US Post Office protesting the sign on the doors of all Post Offices, "No Dogs Allowed." NOW protested that even ugly woman have the right to buy stamps and mail letters.

18 posted on 04/15/2004 5:33:46 PM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republicus2001
I had a college buddy who was accepted to medical school in Arkansas. He got a job as the "coroner" for want of any better qualified applicants. The police department responded to a call from a frightened woman. Her husband wasn't in the house and she heard strange noises outside. Upon arrival, the officers noticed a horse tied up to a nearby fence and a step ladder nearby on the ground. After some searching, the officers found her husband. He was bare naked and laying in a heap in a nearby bush. There were two hoof marks in the middle of his chest. He was dead, thus the need to call the coroner. After bagging the body, the STALLION was lead away to the barn.
19 posted on 04/15/2004 5:42:30 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Bump. And a link to a related (and neglected) similar article by Shelby Steele.
20 posted on 04/15/2004 5:49:30 PM PDT by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
The law specifically prohibits sex between people related by blood or adoption, the majority noted, but since the man neither sired nor adopted her, their relationship does not rise to the level of incest.

That might not be that bad a ruling--if statutory rape with some sort of aggravating circumstance was pressed by the State instead.

21 posted on 04/15/2004 6:46:02 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping + more on the recent Massachusetts Ruling on What is Incest and What is Not.

And the frog sits in the rapidly heating water, thinking "I'm OK - You're OK..."

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
22 posted on 04/15/2004 8:26:37 PM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BossLady
From the article.

"The defendant still faces numerous charges — rape, exhibiting a nude child on videotape and wiretapping — arising from his relationship with his stepdaughter."


23 posted on 04/15/2004 10:40:14 PM PDT by neb52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
More than a decade ago, homosexual marriage was legalized in Scandinavia and now dogs are routinely sodomized in Sweden to the point where they need medical treatment.

Heil to Scandal avia's Lutheran nightmare...
24 posted on 04/16/2004 4:23:27 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
"....now dogs are routinely sodomized in Sweden to the point where they need medical treatment...."

Those Swedish guys are wierd -- all those gorgeous blonde Swedish women and they do that. Sheesh, scandanavia's gone to the dogs. It has debased itself, gone down to the bottom,....
25 posted on 04/16/2004 4:32:09 AM PDT by Cronos (W2K4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
On a European trip in 1981 I was at a train station somewhere (I forget), and went up to a newspaper box to buy a local paper. There was a group of about 20 teenage girls standing there. Every one of them was stunning...10+...I started chatting with one of them, and ask her where they were from. "Sweden", she said. She spoke perfect English without any accent.

Then, I spent 3 weeks in Denmark....it was a real shock, for a country boy from rural Kentucky, to see gorgeous teenage girls sunbathing topless in a city park....
26 posted on 04/16/2004 5:14:09 AM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
LOL!!!
27 posted on 04/16/2004 5:16:19 AM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I visited there in '84 while on leave...
The memory still brings a smile and the passing wisper of young GI hormones.
Those were the days!
28 posted on 04/16/2004 4:10:46 PM PDT by cavtrooper21 (Yes.. I'm one of those "old guys" in the "funny hats". I served. Did you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson